Development licence allotment must be fair, transparent and non-arbitrary; draft plans and first come first served failed Article 14 scrutiny.
Licence applications for a colony had to be assessed with reference to the final development plan, not a draft plan, because the statutory scheme contemplated publication, objections and finalisation before conformity could be tested; reliance on a draft plan was therefore held illegal and without statutory basis. The policy of granting licences on a first come first served basis was also held arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14, since a statutory development licence is a privilege that must be allotted through a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory process. The impugned licences were cancelled, and the State was left free to adopt a lawful alternative method.
Issues: (i) Whether licence applications for a colony could validly be accepted and considered on the basis of a draft development plan rather than the final development plan under the governing planning law. (ii) Whether the policy of granting licences on a first come first served basis was a fair, reasonable and transparent method consistent with Article 14.
Issue (i): Whether licence applications for a colony could validly be accepted and considered on the basis of a draft development plan rather than the final development plan under the governing planning law.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the planning enactment contemplated publication of plans, objections, consideration and then publication of the final plan. The licensing provision under the urban areas statute required consideration of title, extent, situation, capacity, layout and conformity with the development plan at the stage of grant, and the development plan referred to was the final development plan. Accepting applications on the basis of a draft plan in some zones and on the final plan in others had no rational foundation and was not supported by the statute. The practice was found to be without legal basis and contrary to the statutory framework.
Conclusion: The acceptance and consideration of licence applications on the basis of the draft development plan was held to be illegal and unjustified.
Issue (ii): Whether the policy of granting licences on a first come first served basis was a fair, reasonable and transparent method consistent with Article 14.
Analysis: The first come first served method was found to involve chance and to create an unregulated race for priority, without ensuring fairness, transparency or equal opportunity. Grant of a colony licence was treated as a statutory privilege or largesse, and therefore the State was required to adopt a method that was rational, non-arbitrary and compliant with Article 14. The policy as applied did not account for suitability, preparedness or other relevant factors and was therefore arbitrary. The court also held that the State could adopt another lawful and transparent method such as auction, draw of lots or any other fair procedure, subject to law.
Conclusion: The first come first served policy was held not to be a fair or reasonable basis for grant of licences and could not sustain the licences already granted.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned licences granted to the private respondents were cancelled, and the State was left at liberty to evolve and apply a transparent and fair policy for future grant of licence privileges.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory licence to develop land is a privilege governed by Article 14 and must be granted only through a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary procedure; a first come first served policy and reliance on a draft development plan, where the statute contemplates the final development plan, are impermissible.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
